For GOP only

[Rex Kickass]

The reaction might be the same, but the result sure as hell wouldn't.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Isn't she in charge? If it happened on her watch, she should get the s*** for it, just as surely as she would take the acolades were it to be a good thing. You are full of more than tuna if you think that were the parties reversed, the reaction would be the same.

 

 

Oh no, you see she's a liberal Democrat so she is incapable of doing any wrong. It must be someone else's fault.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh no, you see she's a liberal Democrat so she is incapable of doing any wrong. It must be someone else's fault.

 

Would it make you feel better if I just went into every argument making every Republican politician into an extreme caricature of a human being, as far to the right as conceivably possible? And said that the GOP did absolutely nothing in Congress at all since 1994? Because that would be the equivalent of what you are doing here.

 

The rest of us can have arguments in the childish plane too. There is grey in the world, Nuke. The Dems will act like politicians, but they have so far done pretty darn close to exactly what they said they would do. Perfect? No. But they've at least taken some strides in the right direction. But then I don't suspect you are willing to even acknowledge the smallest of things that any Dem has done right are you?

[EvilMonkey]

I just heard on the news that Obama is this close to formally announcing his intentions to run for President. if he runs, as an Illinois resident, someone whom he is supposed to represent, I want him to either resign so he can concentrate on his candidacy, or reimburse the goverment for all the days he misses due to campaigning. He was just elected to represent this state, not elected so he would have a platform to run for a higher office. And no, I don't want that just for Obama, all elected officials should have to do somethign like that if they are running while still in an elected office. If he misses any votes, he is negligent in his duties as a Senator, and not representing the people of Illinois.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

But then I don't suspect you are willing to even acknowledge the smallest of things that any Dem has done right are you?

 

 

Not true. However, when these people go riding into office on this mantra of cleaning up the town and then 2 weeks in we get something like this it doesn't say a whole lot for them at all.

[southsider2k5]

A sweetheart deal in a bill that she didn't author and whose "exclusion" was placed in by the delegate of the affected area which has been overturned.

 

If this was business in usual, that exclusion would still be there.

 

No, not at all. If things were different, they wouldn't be already trying to get around their own rules for political gain.

[NorthSideSox72]

I just heard on the news that Obama is this close to formally announcing his intentions to run for President. if he runs, as an Illinois resident, someone whom he is supposed to represent, I want him to either resign so he can concentrate on his candidacy, or reimburse the goverment for all the days he misses due to campaigning. He was just elected to represent this state, not elected so he would have a platform to run for a higher office. And no, I don't want that just for Obama, all elected officials should have to do somethign like that if they are running while still in an elected office. If he misses any votes, he is negligent in his duties as a Senator, and not representing the people of Illinois.

I always wondered about that, with Senators, Governors and House Reps, doesn't it bother their home state folk that they rae neglecting their duties? Or maybe, does everyone already think so little of their representatives in government that it doesn't seem to make much difference?

[mr_genius]

So, a television station in the UK did a undercover report in mainstream moque's in that country.

 

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...Mosque&only

 

i'm not suprised by what they found.

Edited January 17, 2007 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

John Kass on an Obama candidacy... Pretty much when you dig betweeen the sarcasm and wit, there are some real valid and interesting points made in here. The bit about him being savaged by Team Clinton is going to be an interesting occurance when it happens.

 

Obama all pecs and peccadilloes, now

 

 

Published January 17, 2007

 

 

The last time I saw Sen. Barack Obama, he was without a coat, joking about not needing one in Hawaii, where he was headed to consider the inevitable on a warm beach.

 

He was by himself, in a blue suit on a cool, sunny afternoon, thin, angular, descending the stairs to lower Michigan Avenue, into the shadows, where even a political rock star/future president could sneak a smoke in relative peace.

 

We'd been talking about how he deals with being fawned over by reporters. And again I mentioned a favorite line from the movie "Patton," in which the general discusses the Caesars of Rome, how even as the great men were crowned triumphant with laurel wreaths, there was always an attendant to whisper in their ears: "All glory is fleeting; all glory is fleeting."

 

And after a bit, Obama walked away down those stairs near the Tribune Tower, a likable man, the long stride, the thin silhouette, crisp collar, the back of his head and those ears of his giving hope to parents of big-eared kids everywhere.

 

And then he was gone. He was alone. And that's when I realized I'd never see Obama alone again.

 

On Tuesday, he announced that he had opened an exploratory committee for a run at the White House, a formality since it's been inevitable for so long. In a video release, he said he was considering a campaign "to change our politics," and I wondered how an adoring press corps will finesse and reconcile that one, what with the Daleys of Chicago clinging to him now.

 

From now on, and especially when he formally announces his candidacy on Feb. 10, he'll have mobs around him, security people and media people, and handlers, and party and money people, and the Daleys, and reporters, all prancing about, endlessly excited.

 

Not all reporters prance when Obama's name is mentioned, but there are more than a few. I'm thinking of those who are so enraptured that they write in prose evoking the excited shrieks of adolescent girls squealing at the Beatles when Obama was a child. National media coverage of the man has become so ridiculous, all but embarrassing, and he knows it, what with a veteran political writer longing to follow him into a locker room, to glimpse those pecs made famous in a People Magazine photo.

 

Obama was brave enough to walk on a beach knowing the paparazzi would snap that picture of him. He's fit, but let's hope he doesn't do a Speedo shot if his numbers fade. And who else would run for the presidency and get into a political knife fight with the Clintons if they weren't brave? They'll leak to damage him, and I can already imagine a legitimate question coming from Sen. Hillary Clinton's camp:

 

Obama couldn't see his pal, the indicted influence peddler Tony Rezko, coming on a questionable real estate deal even when all of political Illinois knew Rezko was radioactive. With such childlike innocence regarding Rezko, how could Obama hope, as president, to deal with Vladimir Putin of Russia?

 

Putin will eat him for breakfast, they'll say, ignoring the fact that Hillary's co-president, Bill, lavished a Michael Jordan-autographed basketball on Kim Jong Il in hopes of keeping North Korea away from nukes.

 

Later Tuesday, Hillary had to cancel her big news conference on Iraq policy, what with the story being all Obama all the time. You can bet she's peeved.

 

Naturally, Obama will use the media fawning to his advantage, as a shield. The fawning isn't his fault, yet it must bother him some, all these people who don't really know him, pouring their ambitions into his empty vessel. The implicit contract is clear: The higher he goes, the higher they go. He's the anti-Hillary, and they've signed on for the ride.

 

He's been less a man than a political horse for more than a year now, with political insiders going over his muscles, limbs, looking for flaws of bone and sinew before placing their wagers.

 

They're betting now, aren't they? And the smart money has him formally announcing in Springfield on Feb. 10, where he will link himself to Lincoln.

 

The more sarcastic among us figure he'd rather do it on "Oprah" and receive a big symbolic, protective, motherly hug. And then on to lunch with the Daleys at Cafe Bionda, where someone might--just wildly speculating here--suggest how best to reconfigure the Justice Department's political corruption squad in Chicago after the inauguration.

 

With Bill Daley and Rich Daley behind him, I half figured Obama to announce that he would begin changing our nation's politics from the 5th floor at City Hall. But I imagine the smart people are correct, that he'll make a formal announcement in Springfield and dovetail with Lincoln, another candidate of limited experience who made a great president.

 

"Running for the presidency is a profound decision--a decision no one should make on the basis of media hype or personal ambition alone," Obama said Tuesday. "And so before I committed myself and my family to this race, I wanted to be sure that this was right for us and, more importantly, right for the country."

 

I can't help but think, even with all those people around him, that he's alone, and will be alone in the White House, too, if he gets there.

 

----------

 

[email protected]

[Balta1701]

John Kass on an Obama candidacy... Pretty much when you dig betweeen the sarcasm and wit, there are some real valid and interesting points made in here. The bit about him being savaged by Team Clinton is going to be an interesting occurance when it happens.

It certainly will be an interesting primary to watch, especially when the Clinton money machine is finally turned on him. You'll have an awful lot of interplaying storylines, from the fact that there's already a lot of people who have made up their mind about Clinton and will respond in different ways to her going negative to the fact that Obama doesn't have a long record for them to go after, and combine all that with a brand new early primary/caucus setup for the Dems. And then you've got Edwards and Richardson already sitting there running who might be able to stay above the fray a bit (like Kerry did by letting Gephardt, Lieberman, and the 527's go after Dean in 04). It will certainly be an interesting political show to watch.

[kapkomet]

I heard someone make a comment about Her Thighness going after Obama today, and I have to agree. He's going to get ran over, big-time. That's why Evan Bayh got out... he got a VP offer from Her Thighness because he's "moderate". She'll be the liberal queen during the primary and then all of a sudden go "moderate" after she locks it up, if you believe conventional wisdom. BTW, did you all notice that those two just took a trip to Iraq together?

[southsider2k5]

I heard someone make a comment about Her Thighness going after Obama today, and I have to agree. He's going to get ran over, big-time. That's why Evan Bayh got out... he got a VP offer from Her Thighness because he's "moderate". She'll be the liberal queen during the primary and then all of a sudden go "moderate" after she locks it up, if you believe conventional wisdom. BTW, did you all notice that those two just took a trip to Iraq together?

 

Bayh and Hillary! ? Interesting.

[southsider2k5]

John Edwards has just proven to me he has no idea how an economy/economics works, and there is zero chance I now would EVER vote for him, if he appears on any part of a Presidential ballot.

 

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/6/104531/0287

 

"The Progressive Income Tax has an impact on the welfare of an economy's participants that few people understand. This is because most economists have overlooked the impact that an across-the-board change in disposable incomes will always have on market prices. In this article, we review the merits of the Progressive Income Tax from an analytical perspective that fully incorporates the impact of this crucially important variable."

 

"Our analysis leads to some conclusions that many will perhaps find stunning:

 

*Even a steeply progressive income tax---right up to 99% on the highest incomes---would impose no loss of purchasing power on wealthy income earners.

 

*Reducing the income tax rates of rich citizens will weaken the economy if Congress cuts spending to pay for the tax cuts.

 

*Increasing the amount of taxes collected from wealthy citizens will actually provide a stimulus to the economy.

 

*The rich cannot get richer---in real terms---by getting their taxes cut, but they can become richer if they pay more in taxes.

 

*The government is a major producer of Real Wealth.

 

*An increase in the size of government is almost always quite desirable."

 

*Wealthy citizens who are wise should be lobbying for an increase in government spending and an increase in their tax rates."

[NorthSideSox72]

I heard someone make a comment about Her Thighness going after Obama today, and I have to agree. He's going to get ran over, big-time. That's why Evan Bayh got out... he got a VP offer from Her Thighness because he's "moderate". She'll be the liberal queen during the primary and then all of a sudden go "moderate" after she locks it up, if you believe conventional wisdom. BTW, did you all notice that those two just took a trip to Iraq together?

OK, so, I don't like Hillary. Of the Dem candidates, I think she may actually be my least favorite. I'd rather have Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich or almost anyone else.

 

But... "Her Thighness"? I'm having a hard time not finding that a little offensive.

 

 

John Edwards has just proven to me he has no idea how an economy/economics works, and there is zero chance I now would EVER vote for him, if he appears on any part of a Presidential ballot.

 

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/6/104531/0287

Did Edwards actually write that piece?!

 

I'll just reiterate what I have said before in here about Edwards. He is a likeable candidate who has as good a shot as anyone, because he is seen as a charming southern family man who looks out for the poor. Unfortunately, in reality, I don't think there is enough going on behind that pretty facade of his. I don't think he's bright enough, or has the right leadership skills, to be even remotely effective as an executive. I won't be voting for him.

[southsider2k5]

OK, so, I don't like Hillary. Of the Dem candidates, I think she may actually be my least favorite. I'd rather have Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich or almost anyone else.

 

But... "Her Thighness"? I'm having a hard time not finding that a little offensive.

Did Edwards actually write that piece?!

 

I'll just reiterate what I have said before in here about Edwards. He is a likeable candidate who has as good a shot as anyone, because he is seen as a charming southern family man who looks out for the poor. Unfortunately, in reality, I don't think there is enough going on behind that pretty facade of his. I don't think he's bright enough, or has the right leadership skills, to be even remotely effective as an executive. I won't be voting for him.

 

He didn't actually write it, but the author sure seems to imply that is what he is supporting. Even if he is remotely in that camp, I want zero part of him.

[NorthSideSox72]

He didn't actually write it, but the author sure seems to imply that is what he is supporting. Even if he is remotely in that camp, I want zero part of him.

Agree.

[kapkomet]

OK, so, I don't like Hillary. Of the Dem candidates, I think she may actually be my least favorite. I'd rather have Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich or almost anyone else.

 

But... "Her Thighness"? I'm having a hard time not finding that a little offensive.

Did Edwards actually write that piece?!

 

You're right. I meant it as a joke, but it's tasteless. I won't say it again. I'll just call her "Her Highness". She's arrogant as all get out, and that's my point. It wasn't to be tasteless.

[NorthSideSox72]

You're right. I meant it as a joke, but it's tasteless. I won't say it again. I'll just call her "Her Highness". She's arrogant as all get out, and that's my point. It wasn't to be tasteless.

Cool. Thanks for that. And "Her Highness" is a term I can definitely agree with.

[southsider2k5]

This is an interesting combo, Newt and Rudy on the rebuilding of Iraq.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110009514

 

AFTER THE WAR

 

Getting Iraq to Work

New York City's successes have lessons for Baghdad.

 

BY RUDY GIULIANI AND NEWT GINGRICH

Friday, January 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

 

The American mission in Iraq must succeed. Our goal--promoting a stable, accountable democracy in the heart of the Middle East--cannot be achieved by purely military means.

 

Iraqis need to establish a civil society. Without the support of mediating civic and social associations--the informal ties that bind us together--no government can long remain stable, and no cohesive nation can be maintained. To establish a civil society, Iraqis must rebuild their basic infrastructure. Iraqis must take control of their destiny by rebuilding houses, stores, schools, roads, highways, mosques and churches.

 

But the constant threat of violence, combined with a high unemployment rate estimated between 30% and 50%, fundamentally undermines that effort. This not only sustains the fertile breeding ground for terrorist recruiters but has the same corrosive effect as it would in any city--raising the likelihood of further violence, civic decay and a crippling sense of powerlessness.

 

A massive effort must be made to engage in a well organized plan to rebuild Iraq. The goal: an infrastructure to support and encourage a strong, stable civil society.

 

 

 

 

 

The week before Christmas, the Pentagon asked Congress to approve a supplemental $100 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the estimated $500 billion spent to date. The administration should direct a small percent of that amount to create an Iraqi Citizen Job Corps, along the lines of FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression. The Job Corps can operate under the supervision of our military and with its protection. The Army Corps of Engineers might be particularly helpful in directing this effort. It will place our military in a constructive relationship with the Iraqis--both literally and figuratively.

Today, Iraq has almost 200 state-owned factories that have been abandoned by the governing authorities since the outbreak of war in 2003. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul A. Brinkley has led a team to 26 of those facilities, traveling far beyond the Green Zone to idled plants from Fallujah to Ramadi. Mr. Brinkley believes that under Department of Defense leadership, at least 10 of these facilities could be re-opened almost immediately, putting more than 10,000 Iraqis to work within weeks. This should be done without delay--and it is only the beginning.

 

The wages that these thousands of gainfully employed workers receive will be used to purchase goods and services that will employ other Iraqis. Those goods and services must be produced by still other Iraqis. These are the first steps in creating the requisite conditions of a stable functioning economy and the best hope of displacing retribution and violence with hope and opportunity.

 

We must try to achieve constructive and compassionate goals through conservative means--jump starting civic improvement and the individual work ethic in Iraq, without creating permanent subsidies. The goal is to get more Iraqis working, especially young males, who are most susceptible to the terrorist and warlord recruiters.

 

There are many lessons from the successful welfare reforms in New York City that can be readily applied in Iraq. In the early 1990s, New York City suffered an average of 2,000 murders a year while more than 1.1 million people--one out of every seven New Yorkers--were unemployed and on welfare. Too many neighborhoods were pervaded by a sense of hopelessness that came from a combination of high crime, high unemployment and despair. "Workfare" proved an excellent method to change this destructive decades-long paradigm. It required able-bodied welfare recipients to work 20 hours a week in exchange for their benefits. In the process, we reasserted the value of the social contract, which says that for every right there is a responsibility, for every benefit an obligation.

 

As many as 37,000 people participated at a single time, working in the neighborhoods that most needed their help, cleaning up streets with the Sanitation Department, removing graffiti from schools and government buildings, or helping to beautify public spaces in the Parks Department.

 

More than 250,000 individuals went through our Workfare program between 1994 and 2001, and their effort helped to visibly improve the quality of life in New York City. Many of them moved on to permanent employment. This change from welfare to work did as much as the New York Police Department Compstat program to keep reducing crime. A similar model can work in Iraq.

 

There is an opportunity not only to increase employment by rebuilding roads, houses, schools and government buildings, but also to engage the Iraqi people to participate in laying the foundation for a civil and prosperous society.

 

The population of Iraq is roughly 30 million with a pre-war median annual income equivalent to $700. Subsidizing unemployed Iraqis with a meaningful wage in exchange for meaningful work rebuilding their society is well within the means of the U.S. and its allies.

 

 

 

 

 

The entire effort will help stabilize and grow the Iraqi economy. It should be open to all willing Iraqis--Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds--as a means of helping to create a common culture through shared participation in work projects to rebuild and take ownership of their nation.

One word of caution: The program should be overseen by the U.S. military, not private contractors, to avoid unnecessary delays in deployment or accusations of cronyism in the bidding process. Our military will still be devoted to its primary role of hunting down terrorists and patrolling the streets, but administering a jobs program would be a direct extension of their effort to secure law and order. After the program has been started and becomes successful, it can be transferred to a civilian authority within the Iraqi government.

 

The creation of an Iraqi Citizen Job Corps will help expedite the establishment of a more stable civil society and improve the growing Iraqi economy through the transforming power of an honest day's work.

 

Mr. Giuliani is the former mayor of New York City. Mr. Gingrich is a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

[kapkomet]

Yea, that article was in the WSJ last week.

[southsider2k5]

Now ABC is catching on the potential fireworks between the two biggest kids on the block...

 

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/sto...3960&page=1

 

Jan. 18, 2007 — Prospective Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama already seem to be battling for an edge in the race for the White House in 2008.

 

On Wednesday, Clinton went on the attack, calling for a cap on U.S. troops sent to Iraq. Minutes after Clinton released her plan, Obama responded, continuing to provide late-night comics with fodder for jokes and making people wonder whether competition between the two might get ugly.

 

"The No. 1 little-known fact about Barack Obama: [He's] only running for president to piss off Hillary," David Letterman said on Tuesday.

 

"That's the big rumor — that Barack will officially announce on the 'Oprah' show. I think Hillary will announce on 'Trading Spouses,'" Jay Leno said on his show.

 

 

At the very least, the tension is unsettling for the Clinton camp.

 

Consider the Iraq matchup: Obama, who was not in the Senate for the original vote on the Iraq War, has steadily opposed the conflict.

 

Clinton has evolved from supporting troop increases in 2003 to accusing former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of "presiding over a failed policy" and advocating a change in course in 2006.

 

Though the change in Clinton's views also seems to mirror the nation's — and the increasingly grim situation in Iraq — she could appear politically calculating while Obama seems principled.

 

 

Charm to Spare vs. Hard-Earned Trust

 

The two diverge at the podium, too. Next to Obama's fluid poetry, Clinton's delivery can seem overly cautious.

 

"Sen. Clinton can be very compelling in front of a crowd. … On the other hand, Sen. Obama has a gift, and there are certain things in politics you can't teach," said Dee Dee Myers, former President Clinton's press secretary.

 

A devout Methodist, Clinton rarely talks about religion while Obama speaks freely about faith.

 

"I believe that we all rise up together or we fall together," he has said.

 

When it comes to the glamour factor, between the two, it's a draw — for now.

 

Clinton has been the unparalleled star of the Democratic Party, her power hard-earned and palpable, her "hot" factor given a substantial boost by her ever-popular husband.

 

Obama doesn't have a lengthy career and powerful relationships on his side, but, with his fairy-tale family, he has personal charisma to spare.

 

While Obama's a fresh pick for the future, Clinton's been reliably road-tested.

 

"Sen. Clinton brings things to the table like tenacity, a resilience, the ability to take a punch. We don't know if Sen. Obama can do that," Myers said.

[mreye]

John Edwards has just proven to me he has no idea how an economy/economics works, and there is zero chance I now would EVER vote for him, if he appears on any part of a Presidential ballot.

 

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/6/104531/0287

 

This has to be a joke Nobody can be stupid enough to write this or believe it's bullet points.

[southsider2k5]

I guess this goes under, I was for it, before I was against it...

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

 

Tough month

 

On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.

 

"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "

 

"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."

 

Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.

 

Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.

 

"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.

 

The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.

 

Unfortunately for the new House intelligence chief, this is his second (some would argue his third) major blunder in the space of one month. When asked by Congressional Quarterly reporter Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda was a Sunni or Shi'ite organization, he answered: "Predominantly, probably Shi'ite."

 

As Mr. Stein wrote later: "He couldn't have been more wrong. Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shi'ite showed up at an al Qaeda clubhouse, they'd slice his head off and use it for a soccer ball."

 

The reporter added: "To me, it's like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who's on what side?"

 

In the same interview, Mr. Stein had asked Mr. Reyes about the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

 

 

His now-infamous reply: "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah? ... Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o'clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?"

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I guess this goes under, I was for it, before I was against it...

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

 

 

Democrats being hypocritical?!!? SAY IT AINT SO!!!!

[southsideirish71]

So, a television station in the UK did a undercover report in mainstream moque's in that country.

 

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...Mosque&only

 

i'm not suprised by what they found.

 

I watched this all the way through. Its very disturbing. Its funny, how these organizations are the spokepersons for the UK for religious tolerance, and openness yet behind the doors when the public is out they are preaching death to non-islam and the creation of an islamic britain under sharia law. And its not just one or 2 mosques. Its a bunch of the "moderate" mosques. Our media here is too politically correct to have a undercover item like this. I would think if they did this in the US, we would find the same thing.

 

The basic jist of every speaker, is that all muslims are good people, and if you are not muslim you have 2 choices become a muslim or perish to Jihad. My favorite was the one crazy who wanted to crucify the christians if they didnt convert, and let them bleed for 3 days. Nice reference there crazy terrorist wantabee.

 

Nice.

Edited January 19, 2007 by southsideirish71